PDA

View Full Version : Univ of Rochester finds no temp correlation with CO2


Wagmc
Aug18-09, 07:59 AM
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420

Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.

These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth's climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.

The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth's climate system.

The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth's climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.

"These shifts happened relatively abruptly," says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. "One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation."

Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.

The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.

The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring "warming in the pipeline." Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

Xnn
Aug18-09, 11:54 AM
Ocean temperatures have been rising since at least 1955 as has atmospheric CO2 levels. They are currently at or near record high levels. The increasing temperatures have been documented from the surface to depths of about 2 miles. During this time, overall ocean temperatures have shown short-term dips for a few years, but considering the uncertainty with the measurement the reversals are not all necessarily significant. If anything they signal subtle changes in circulation and currents within the worlds oceans. So, it’s misleading to imply that CO2 levels don’t correlate with rising Ocean Temperatures, since they clearly do. Agreed, the changes in Ocean circulation don’t correlate with rising CO2 levels, but nobody should have ever thought that they would.

From the following article, notice that there was a slight period of ocean cooling during the 1960’s and 80’s, but the overall trend has been towards warming.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page4.php


“My point is just that we need to remain open-minded because it may be that it is possible for the ocean to gain heat and lose it more rapidly than we think. There may be other phenomena [similar to El Niño] operating on different time scales that can explain interdecadal increases and decreases,” says Levitus. Even if these ups and downs don’t change the long-term destination of global warming, they could reveal more detail about what kind of ride we can expect.

Richard111
Aug19-09, 01:06 AM
“Since 1993 or so, we have added several million historical temperature profiles. This collection allowed us for the first time to estimate the change in ocean heat content from 1955 on. When we first published these results in 2000, they received a great deal of media, congressional, and scientific attention, because the warming that we saw was consistent with what would have been expected due to the increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” recalls Levitus.

This quote is from the link above. My emphasis. Now I have to go rethink what little science I thought I knew and accept the new fact that air can heat water.

The heat capacity of 1kg normal atmosphere equals or exceeds the heat capacity of 1kg water. New fact!

The heat capacity of the first 2.5 meters of global ocean is equal to the heat capacity of the entire global atmosphere. Old discredited fact!

From the very authorative quote above it would seem this new state of affairs is due entirely to to a trace gas that constitutes some 0.04% of the total atmosphere.

This is all way beyond my ability to understand so I hearby give up on "science" and will wait with inscrutable patience to see what happens in the future. In the mean time I will add to my fuel stock pile as autumn has already arrived this August according to some of the trees outside my window.

sylas
Aug19-09, 02:34 AM
This quote is from the link above. My emphasis. Now I have to go rethink what little science I thought I knew and accept the new fact that air can heat water.

The heat capacity of 1kg normal atmosphere equals or exceeds the heat capacity of 1kg water. New fact!

The heat capacity of the first 2.5 meters of global ocean is equal to the heat capacity of the entire global atmosphere. Old discredited fact!

From the very authorative quote above it would seem this new state of affairs is due entirely to to a trace gas that constitutes some 0.04% of the total atmosphere.


The effect of this gas has nothing whatsoever to do with heat capacity, but rather to the fact that the gas is opaque to substantial amounts of the infrared spectrum.

You can get radically different temperature effects with a gas that is opaque to thermal radiation. This has been known since the nineteenth century. We discussed the experiments in another thread. See especially msg #10 of thread "Need Help: Can You Model CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas (Or is This Just Wishful Thinking?)".

The paper presented here by Wagmc is potentially interesting, but the comments about heat capacity of the atmosphere have nothing to do with greenhouse warming or with the proposals in the paper for changes in how heat moves in and out of the ocean at different times.

I'm kind of busy with some basic atmospheric physics in another thread, which deals with how the energy is transmitted through the atmosphere. This is where greenhouse effects are relevant -- not with how the heat is stored!

I don't propose to comment here much for the moment, so I'll hold my piece on the content of the thread. But I'm just posting this comment to help folks avoid going off a side track that is irrelevant to the original paper, and to the posted response. Your understanding of heat capacity seems to be just fine; what you need to figure out is more about how heat is transferred (radiation, convection) and not mix that up with where it is stored (the ocean, mostly).

Cheers -- sylas

PS. I've just noticed that it was you, Richard, who posed a really useful little thought experiment in that other thread I mentioned. I've been working slowing on a proper reply. So I've just posted the initial thought to that thread as msg #155. It gives a brief start to how you can calculate the effects of how a gas influences temperature by how it transmits energy, rather then by how it stores it. I'll go into some details there eventually.